With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

(APPLAUSE)

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

And Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true.” In deference to the separation of powers, and all that:

Our Demagogue-in-Chief has now turned his demonizing away from George Bush (for just a brief moment, mind you) and toward the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Barack Obama is a demagouge, and nothing but a demagogue. You are either with him, or he is bitterly against you. He has been a fearmongerer and a demagogue from the beginning:

ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”

That was too much for Time’s Joe Klein. “There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … ,” he wrote. “The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”You might dismiss the New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s complaint that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” as hyperbole.

And what happens if you contradict such a “cult of personality”? You become the enemy of the religion. And you must be attacked with the zeal of the fanatic.

Did the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court want to “strike at our democracy itself”? Hardly:

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Boy, is THAT ever striking against democracy. Damn free speech! Damn First Amendment! Let’s get rid of them both and have Obama instead!

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

I’m reminded of the sci-fi movies that feature an evil scientist finally having his own monsters turn on him while he screams.

It’s poetic justice that the industries and businesses that Obama demonized should finally get a chance to have their crack at him.

And only a profoundly anti-American ideologue would say that people shouldn’t have a right to publicly confront their accuser. When Obama attacks them in public, they should have a right to speak out themselves in public.

An excellent summary of the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision can be found here. Basically, the Court recognized that there are two types of corporations: media corporations and non-media corporations. One had the full rights of free speech, and the other had its free speech rights attacked. Why should General Electric-owned NBC have complete access to free speech, while other corporations are banned from free speech?

As Justice Kennedy (who is hardly “right wing”) pointed out in his decision:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

You can frankly understand why Obama and the far left want to have the ability to keep attacking businesses and people who depend upon businesses for their livelihood without their opponents being able to respond. They want to be able to impose their agenda and crush any and all opposition. By any means necessary.

Fortunately the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to answer back to this demagoguery.

Our United States Supreme Court has defined a corporation in the following language: “An association of individuals, acting as a single person …. united for some common purpose …. and permitted by the law to use a common name and to change its members without a dissolution of the Association.”

But liberals don’t like these “people.” They don’t like businesses. And they believe they should have the right to attack the people they don’t like, and that the people they attack should have no right to defend themselves.

Corporations are legally recognized to act as a “person.” Obama has attacked such “persons” too many times to count. And now that “person” finally is getting the right to respond.

Americans will soon be forced by their government to give their money to private companies unless the American people massively rise up as one and shout them into backing down.

William Briggs had this to say regarding how unconstitutional, unAmerican, dishonest, and incompetent the Democrats’ plan is:

The new health care tax–which isn’t yet honestly called a tax, but a “program”—will almost certainly pass the Senate. Part of this “program” is said to be an “individual mandate”, which will require, via the full majesty of the law, that individuals purchase health insurance, even if they do not want it.

That is, you will be forced by implied gunpoint to fork over your money to a private company. You can well imagine these companies’ new customer service messages. Listen carefully, for our options have recently changed: Press 1 for “Hahahahahahaha”!

This, incidentally, leads to our definition of mandate: comply, or be jailed, where you will be forced to comply.

The Los Angeles Times (D), was concerned that citizens would be confused about this mandate. It published a “Healthcare Q & A“, to explain to its readers why more of their money should be taken from them. Like all good Q & A’s, it is in the form of bullets.

“Why require everyone to buy insurance?” The truth is that the new government entitlement, like all entitlements before it, is a beast that must gorge on fresh money to survive. It needs to be fed often and copiously. The LAT’s confusing answer said that some people don’t have insurance, and that those who do will be “helping pay the costs of those without it.” This explanation would have been fine if the word helping was omitted.

“What benefit do I get from being required to buy insurance?” Probably less back pain: your wallet will be significantly lightened, thus relieving stress and strain. You also get to see a few companies, presumably those that have given generously to the reelection campaigns of certain politicians, receive our mandated largess. Surely they will spend our money wisely. The LAT says, “you will get coverage”.

“How can insurers afford to cover so many people who have expensive illnesses? Will my premium go up?” Excellent question. They cannot, so, yes, premiums must rise. The LAT said, “Gee, would ya look at the time?”

“Since young people don’t cost the system much, would they be allowed to buy less expensive plans?” No. They should be allowed not to buy and only pay for services as needed. Even the LAT had to admit that if that dangerous idea “were carried too far, however, it would defeat the purpose of an insurance plan.” The government’s plan, that is.

Inexplicably, the LAT’s Q & A stopped there. They forgot the most important questions.

If everybody is forced to buy insurance, it isn’t really insurance anymore, is it? No, it isn’t. Insurance is a bet between two parties, no different than a wager on a football game. It’s like buying a lottery ticket you hope won’t win. If everybody is forced to pay into a pool, whose monies will be used to fund health care expenses, then that is a tax.

People are a lot healthier now than twenty years ago, and people twenty years ago were a lot healthier than people forty years ago, and so on. So why is everybody calling our current state a “crisis”? Three things have gone wrong: politicians lie, exaggerates or are ill informed, the press lies, exaggerates or is ill informed, and the bulk of the public eats it up, cowers in fear or is ill informed.

After the Democrats pass the health care tax, what can I do? Grip your ankles, baby. It’ll be just like going to the doctor to have a “digital” exam, only this time without the Vaseline. Another option is to donate to the DNC and then form your own insurance company.

The bill sets up a supermajority threshold of 67 votes to bring accountability to IMAB decisions, and the rule on being in or out of order can get waived at 60 votes. However, as this battle shows, even getting to 60 is almost an impossibility, let alone 67. Clearly Reid wants to put accountability out of reach with these radical propositions.

As to that last, you see a United States Senator attempting to – in blatantly unconstitutional fashion – dictate the actions and limit the behavior of a future Congress. That’s “dictate,” as in “dictator.”

“This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG,” former Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean told “Good Morning America’s” George Stephanopoulos today. “A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.

“This is an insurance company’s dream, this bill,” Dean continued. “This is the Washington scramble, and I think it’s ill-advised.”

Mind you, these very same liberals would have been cheering if Americans were being forced to buy the exact same kind of insurance from the government. It’s not that they are opposed to people being forced to make purchases that they don’t want to make. After all, that would make them classical liberals rather than the liberal fascists that they are. Rather, they are simply revealing how profoundly they hate private businesses rather than state ownership of the means of production.

But at least, both the right and the left are in agreement: the Democrats’ bill is a terrible and immoral idea.

Obama and Democrats have been falsely and maliciously demonizing private insurance companies for months. We particularly saw that in Obama’s vicious attacks against Humana. One blogger correctly saw the bottom line and said, “I hope you can see the writing on the wall here. The Obama administration wants to control private industry. They want to control their profits and they want to control what private industry can and cannot say.” And now we see that the administration was using all that demagoguery and demonization to create the conditions for an offer that the insurance companies couldn’t refuse.

Let me put this development into context by first providing a definition:

Sheldon Richman (of the Foundation for Economic Education) provides the distinction in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics in his entry on “Fascism”:

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”–that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

What we are seeing here is raw, naked fascism.

The insurance companies were first clubbed into submission, then offered something of a carrot in exchange for their compliance. And the result is that they are doing exactly what the administration wants – and as long as they toe the Obama line, they’ll even be rewarded for doing what the administration wants.

We used to be governed by a Constitution in which this sort of thing would have been anathema. Not anymore. The Democrats running the country now could care less about the Constitution.

When Nancy Pelosi was asked where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, Nancy Pelosi said: “Are You Serious? Are you SERIOUS?” The Speaker of the House of Representatives couldn’t be bothered by such a question simply because she couldn’t care less. Diane Feinstein took much the same view – and revealed what a threat to the Constitution these Democrats and their despicable health care bill truly is.

In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

This is an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power.

Now we get to the term “Tea Party.” Our founding fathers literally started a war when they were forced to pay what was actually a quite modest tax without representation.

We used to be a people who stood up and fought when our freedoms were challenged. But over the last century, we have had piles on top of piles of unconstitutional “laws” that did precisely that.

What will we do? Allow this fiasco to pass? Passively purchase our “insurance” and hope the price doesn’t keep going up higher and higher while our medical care sinks lower and lower? Sit by and allow our parents and family members to die do to medical neglect from rationing?

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

I could go on and on on the demagogic tactics of this administration. But I think I’ve demonstrated my point.

There’s a single short paragraph in a Hill article that came out yesterday that sums up Obama’s “leadership” style. Threatening a liberal Democrat who has not always toed the Obama line, we had this unveiled threat:

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.

It was just a couple of days ago that we heard that Barry Hussein had threatened Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) with closing Offutt Air Force Base – which not only employs 10,000 people but serves as the strategically vital location for the US Strategic Command – as a naked threat to force Nelson to support ObamaCare. But incredibly, at the same time the White House was frankly treasonously intimidating a US Senator with a threat against US national security, they were also trying to offer a bribe that would make even Mary Landrieu’s $300 million “Louisiana Purchase” look tame.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman in opposing the current senate version of ObamaCare, with Schwarzenegger saying the unfunded expansion of Medicaid would cost California an additional $3 billion a year when the state is already deep into a budget crisis. And that is now going to be $3 billion PLUS California’s share in paying for Nebraska’s exempted share.

To get as far as the bill did so far, it appears the administration might have spread some money around. California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.

When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he’d been offered the dollars he was looking for — $128 million in federal money.

“He responded to me by basically saying that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced,” Smittcamp told Fox News.

Now we officially learn, according to a study of Obama’s stimulus by George Mason University, that the Democrats are using the stimulus as a slush fund. The study found no correlation between unemployment rate and stimulus funding; rather, Democrat districts have received DOUBLE the money received by Republican districts as the most partisan president in the history of America proved his true colors again.

And of course, that is why Americans should be terrified by this administration: a president who can pay bribes to buy political behavior can take money away to discourage other political behavior.

In any event, we have our answer to the question posed by the title: “What happens when a demagogue’s demagoguery fails him?” Answer: a ton of naked bribery and insider-politicking using taxpayer stimulus money that was supposed to be used to create jobs, but is instead being used to buy Democrat’s votes for a federal government takeover of the health care system.